Andrew Lee <[email protected]> writes: > Hi Otto, > > On Mon, Sep 7, 2026 at 12:59 PM Balachandran Sivakumar > <[email protected]> wrote: >> If we don't take this approach, and if a downstream dependency >> still depends on the older version, it wouldn't have a deb package to >> pin its dependency on, isn't it? > > Aha, Balachandran just reminding me additional good reasons here. > * No More Maintainer Conflicts: Maintainers do not have to fight over > which major version to keep in Debian when different reverse > dependencies need different versions. > * No More Broken Downstream Dependencies: Downstream packages that > still need the older major version will still work, as their target > package remains available in Debian.
I think that is optimistic -- the Go ecosystem is famous for breaking API within vX branches too, and this is common. Important Go applications doesn't even guarantee API stability (cf, recent cosign API breakage in v3). We'll have to continue pester upstream on this. So I think the above two concerns will remain, regardless of what we do here wrt source package naming. /Simon
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
